On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 5:37 AM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys > > Eliot I do not understand why you are reacting like that. Our goal is not > to make the live of people worse. All the efforts we > do in Pharo is to get better. >
Reacting like what? I am trying to establish that the transcript is broken and needs fixing. Do you agree or not? If you don't agree then fine, Clément will continue to develop the VM in Squeak, and I'll always be confused about the Pharo community's ability to discuss technical issues. If you do agree, then why not plan to fix it? If instead you don't want to discuss the technical issue and instead see this as some kind of emotional attack then I'm sorry but that's completely dysfuncitonal. People make mistakes. Communities bake bad decisions. These things happen. But mature people and functional communities can recognize (you notice I didn't say admit, no one wants to ridicule people for their mistakes, I make serious mistakes continuously) their mistakes and rectify them. I am /not/ attacking the community, I am /not/ saying that Pharo is not trying to improve things, I am /not/ saying the old transcript was the most perfect piece of software ever, I am saying that the current behaviour and api of the transcript is *broken*. It needs to be a) compatible with WriteStream, and b) needs to display its output as soon as it is sent flush. Do you disagree? > I changed the transcript because when I started to work on concurrent > programming chapters then the transcript was simply useless. > Now I would like to know how we can improve the solution and this is why I > sent this mail. > But apparently I should not have. :( > > I did not send it to receive your kind of emails. I'm convinced you can do > better. I do not know what you mean about doctrine. > Pharo objectives is to bring money in Smalltalk and to build better tools > and infrastructure. > > Stef > > > -- best, Eliot
